kylemeister wrote on 09/22/07 at 17:08:14:
NCO thinks that White can reach a clear advantage by means of 4. Nc3 c5 5. d5 b5 6. e4. It cites Christiansen-Alburt, US Ch 1985, and an ostensible improvement on Matamoros-Zaichik, Camaguey 1987. ECO cites the latter game as "compensation for the material," while the more recent Small ECO ignores 6. e4 entirely. Hmm.
Przewoznik & Pein give 6.e4 b4 7.e5 bxc3 8.exf6.
Now, instead of Alburt's 8...Qa5, they recommend 8...cxb2 9.Bxb2 gxf6, and comment that: "it is hard to believe that right now the attack is more important than a pawn." Since their book was published in 1992, this position has been reached twice, and White won both games:
[Event "SVE-LAT corr"]
[Date "1992.??.??"]
[White "Markauss,Juris"]
[Black "Hjorth,Gunnar"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 a6 4.Nf3 e6 5.Nc3 b5 6.e4 b4 7.e5 bxc3 8.exf6 cxb2 9.Bxb2 gxf6 10.Bd3 Bg7 11.Qc2 Kf8 12.0-0 f5 13.Rab1 d6 14.dxe6 fxe6 15.Be4 Ra7 16.Bxg7+ Rxg7 17.Rxb8 fxe4 18.Qxe4 Rhg8 19.g3 Qc7 20.Rfb1 Re7 21.Qf4+ Ke8 22.Ng5 Rf8 23.Qe4 1-0
[Site "Sovata"]
[Date "2001.03.10"]
[White "Manolache,Marius"]
[Black "Varaciuc,Vivian"]
1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 a6 4.Nf3 c5 5.d5 b5 6.e4 b4 7.e5 bxc3 8.exf6 cxb2 9.Bxb2 gxf6 10.Qd2 Bg7 11.Bd3 0-0 12.0-0 d6 13.Rfe1 f5 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.Rab1 e5 16.Rb6 a5 17.Nxe5 Qf6 18.Qb2 Na6 19.f4 Nb4 20.Re3 h6 21.Bb1 Ra6 22.Rb8 dxe5 23.fxe5 Qe7 24.Rg3+ Rg6 25.a3 Na6 26.Rbb3 Kh7 27.Rbf3 Rxg3 28.hxg3 Qg5 29.Qb6 Qc1+ 30.Kh2 Qxc4 31.Rxf5 1-0
I'll have to look more carefully, but I think Black can improve on both these games. Nevertheless, I'm not sure I agree with Przewoznik & Pein's conclusions: bishops on b2 & d3, and queen on d2 are sitting on nice diagonals aiming at the kingside. Maybe Black should be looking for ways to avoid castling into the onslaught.
Alburt's 8...Qa5 9.bxc3 gxf6 10.Bd2 f5 11.Bd3 Bg7 looks somewhat more compelling...